CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Riggs v. Riggs

This case concerns a divorce between Lisa Goodpaster Riggs and Kenneth Lee Riggs after a 28-year marriage. The trial court awarded Ms. Goodpaster alimony in futuro and attorney fees, finding she had no ability to earn income. Mr. Riggs appealed this decision. The appellate court found that Ms. Goodpaster does have the ability to earn income, citing her real estate license and a potential organic candy business. Consequently, the court reversed the award of alimony in futuro and remanded the case for a determination of rehabilitative and/or transitional alimony, while affirming the award of attorney fees.

DivorceAlimonySpousal SupportMarital ConductRehabilitative AlimonyTransitional AlimonyAttorney FeesAppellate ReviewEconomic DisadvantageEarning Capacity
References
26
Case No. M2013-01879-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 23, 2014

Melissa Ann Henderson v. Richard Barry Henderson

Husband appealed a divorce judgment concerning alimony in futuro and marital property division. The Court of Appeals found the trial court erred only in allocating $3,900 worth of assets (iPad and rental home appliances) to Husband that the record showed he did not own. This part of the judgment was modified, reducing Husband's marital assets accordingly. All other aspects of the trial court's judgment, including the award of alimony in futuro to Wife, were affirmed. The case was remanded to the trial court to determine the amount of reasonable attorney fees Wife incurred on appeal, as she was awarded one-half of them.

DivorceAlimony in futuroMarital Property DivisionSpousal SupportPension ValuationPersonal Injury SettlementSeparate PropertyMarital DebtAttorney Fees on AppealEquitable Distribution
References
29
Case No. E2010-01255-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 28, 2011

Carol Denice Pettijohn v. Patrick Carl Pettijohn

This is an appeal from a divorce case where the Husband challenged the trial court's division of marital property and alimony awards. The Wife, who was economically disadvantaged and had health issues, was granted alimony in solido (Husband's share of the marital home) and alimony in futuro. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding the property division equitable and the alimony awards appropriate given the parties' economic circumstances, health, and contributions to the marriage, consistent with relevant Tennessee statutes and case law.

DivorceMarital Property DivisionAlimony in SolidoAlimony in FuturoEconomic DisadvantageEquitable DistributionAppellate ReviewJudicial DiscretionHealth ConditionsChild Support
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jan S. v. Leonard S.

This case concerns an ex-wife's motion for an upward modification of her $100 weekly lifetime alimony, established in a 1974 divorce decree, from her wealthy ex-husband. Despite suffering from mental illness, poverty, and homelessness, a Special Referee recommended denying her request. The court, presided over by Justice Matthew F. Cooper, confirmed the Referee's report, finding no substantial or unforeseen change in circumstances. The court ruled that her status as a "public charge" and the effects of inflation were not new developments justifying an increase, emphasizing that the ex-husband is not solely responsible for her continued difficulties. The ex-wife's motion for increased alimony and attorney's fees was denied, with the original alimony amount maintained.

DivorceAlimonySpousal SupportUpward ModificationChange in CircumstancesSpecial Referee ReportPublic ChargeMental IllnessHomelessnessInflation
References
27
Case No. W2017-01556-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 13, 2019

Sallie Lunn Tarver v. John Taylor Tarver

This appeal arises from a divorce proceeding involving Sallie Lunn Tarver (Wife) and John Kirk Tarver (Husband), with Husband's father, John Taylor Tarver (Grandfather), also named due to jointly held assets. The trial court determined Husband's one-half interest in the Shelby Drive property was marital property, acquired as an incentive for his return to work, and ordered its equitable division. The court imputed income to both spouses for alimony and child support, awarding Wife alimony in solido, alimony in futuro, and child support, plus a portion of her attorney's fees. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's rulings on property classification, valuation, income imputation, and alimony, and denied both parties' requests for appellate attorney's fees.

DivorceMarital PropertyEquitable DistributionAlimonyChild SupportImputed IncomeJoint TenancySeparate PropertyProperty ValuationAttorney's Fees
References
61
Case No. 03A01-9711-CV-00511
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 09, 1998

Gary Wayne Robertson v. Lori Vanhooser Robertson - Concurring

This is a divorce case where the Wife appealed the trial court's decision. The appellate court modified the trial court's decrees regarding custody, child support, and alimony. Specifically, it clarified joint custody with primary residence to the Wife, recalculated child support based on the Husband's actual gross income including overtime, and adjusted alimony to periodic alimony in futuro given the Wife's economic disadvantage and inability for full rehabilitation. The appellate court also reversed the trial court's denial of attorney's fees for the Wife, remanding for a determination of appropriate legal fees.

DivorceMarital AssetsChild Support GuidelinesRehabilitative AlimonyPeriodic AlimonyAttorney's FeesCustodyEquitable DistributionSpousal SupportOvertime Income
References
21
Case No. W2000-02033-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 10, 2001

Patsy Oakley v. James Oakley

This appeal arose from a divorce action concerning the division of marital property and alimony awards after 22 years of marriage. The Court of Appeals found the trial court's concurrent award of alimony in futuro and rehabilitative alimony inconsistent, reversing the former and modifying the latter to cover health insurance costs. The trial court's decision to award the wife a portion of the appreciation of the husband's separate stock portfolio was reversed. While affirming the classification of appreciation of husband's real properties as marital, the court reversed and remanded the division of Oakley Framers, requiring a determination of its initial value to correctly calculate the marital appreciation. The finding that the wife's condominium was separate property was affirmed.

DivorceMarital PropertyAlimonySeparate PropertyProperty AppreciationEquitable DistributionRehabilitative AlimonyAlimony in FuturoAlimony in SolidoStock Portfolio
References
6
Case No. E2001-02849-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 23, 2002

Sherry Hopkins v. James Hopkins

This case involves an appeal from the Circuit Court for Sevier County concerning a divorce decree. James Franklin Hopkins challenged the Trial Court's award of alimony to Sherry Mae Hopkins and the order for marital debts to be paid from the sale of the marital residence. He also asserted Ms. Hopkins unlawfully disposed of marital assets. The Court of Appeals affirmed in part and modified in part, reversing the alimony in futuro award and granting rehabilitative alimony for four years. The appellate court upheld the division of marital debt but found Ms. Hopkins violated a statutory injunction by selling a marital asset without consent, granting Mr. Hopkins a credit.

DivorceAlimonyMarital PropertyDebt DivisionSpousal SupportRehabilitative AlimonyMarital AssetsAppellate ReviewEconomic DisadvantageFamily Law
References
6
Case No. W2008-02041-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 03, 2009

Brenda Brewer v. Kenny Brewer, Sr.

This divorce case involves an appeal by the Husband concerning the classification and division of marital property, as well as an alimony award. Husband argued that Wife's personal injury settlement, SSI benefits, and car insurance proceeds should have been included as marital assets subject to equitable distribution. He also sought a reduction in Wife's share of the marital home and challenged the trial court's order for rehabilitative and in futuro alimony. The Court of Appeals reviewed the trial court's findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding property classification, equitable division, and spousal support. Ultimately, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, upholding the property division and the alimony award to the Wife.

DivorceMarital PropertyEquitable DivisionAlimonyPersonal InjurySSI BenefitsSeparate PropertySpousal SupportProperty ClassificationAppellate Review
References
26
Case No. W2013-01948-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 03, 2015

Steven A. Holdsworth v. Wendy Alford Holdsworth

This case concerns an appeal from a highly contentious divorce between Steven A. Holdsworth (Husband) and Wendy Alford Holdsworth (Wife). The trial court initially issued a final decree addressing marital asset dissipation, a permanent parenting plan, child support, and alimony. Subsequently, the parenting plan was modified after the Husband's arrest for marijuana possession with his girlfriend. The appellate court affirmed the finding of dissipation but modified the award, vacated and remanded for recalculation of child support due to income miscalculations, reversed the alimony in futuro, and reversed the award of attorney's fees, suggesting transitional alimony instead. The court also found error in conditioning the Husband's parenting time on a non-party's compliance.

DivorceMarital AssetsChild SupportAlimonyParenting PlanDissipation of AssetsAttorney's FeesModification of OrdersDrug OffensesAppellate Review
References
43
Showing 1-10 of 85 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational